US10949924B2 - Inter-arrival times triggered, probabilistic risk transfer system and a corresponding method thereof - Google Patents

Inter-arrival times triggered, probabilistic risk transfer system and a corresponding method thereof Download PDF

Info

Publication number
US10949924B2
US10949924B2 US15/593,485 US201715593485A US10949924B2 US 10949924 B2 US10949924 B2 US 10949924B2 US 201715593485 A US201715593485 A US 201715593485A US 10949924 B2 US10949924 B2 US 10949924B2
Authority
US
United States
Prior art keywords
risk
time
transfer
event
automated
Prior art date
Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
Active, expires
Application number
US15/593,485
Other languages
English (en)
Other versions
US20180114272A1 (en
Inventor
Stefan Reimann
Marc Wüest
David Baumgartner
Current Assignee (The listed assignees may be inaccurate. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy of the list.)
Swiss Re AG
Original Assignee
Swiss Reinsurance Co Ltd
Priority date (The priority date is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the date listed.)
Filing date
Publication date
Application filed by Swiss Reinsurance Co Ltd filed Critical Swiss Reinsurance Co Ltd
Assigned to SWISS REINSURANCE COMPANY LTD. reassignment SWISS REINSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS). Assignors: BAUMGARTNER, DAVID, WUEST, MARC, REIMANN, STEFAN
Publication of US20180114272A1 publication Critical patent/US20180114272A1/en
Application granted granted Critical
Publication of US10949924B2 publication Critical patent/US10949924B2/en
Active legal-status Critical Current
Adjusted expiration legal-status Critical

Links

Images

Classifications

    • G—PHYSICS
    • G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
    • G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
    • G06Q40/00—Finance; Insurance; Tax strategies; Processing of corporate or income taxes
    • G06Q40/08—Insurance
    • G—PHYSICS
    • G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
    • G06N—COMPUTING ARRANGEMENTS BASED ON SPECIFIC COMPUTATIONAL MODELS
    • G06N5/00—Computing arrangements using knowledge-based models
    • G06N5/02—Knowledge representation; Symbolic representation
    • G06N5/022—Knowledge engineering; Knowledge acquisition
    • G06N7/005—
    • G—PHYSICS
    • G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
    • G06N—COMPUTING ARRANGEMENTS BASED ON SPECIFIC COMPUTATIONAL MODELS
    • G06N7/00—Computing arrangements based on specific mathematical models
    • G06N7/01—Probabilistic graphical models, e.g. probabilistic networks

Definitions

  • the present invention relates to automated systems for predicting and exposure-based signaling, steering and/or operating catastrophic risk-event driven or triggered systems; in particular, these are automated risk-transfer systems or other systems and instruments intended to hedge against risk, e.g. weather-related risks, including catastrophic and other significant risks, be they weather-related or otherwise.
  • Cat Return In the context of exposure-based signaling, steering and/or operating of catastrophic risk-event driven or triggered systems, the so called “Cat Return” sets out the extent of such reliance and put one of the technical bases of the operation of risk-transfer systems mitigating predicted risks, and monitoring and quantifying exposure to risk-transfer systems. It also can serve as a tool for assessing if inputs into catastrophe components are reasonable or if regulatory capital requirements are appropriate. Automated risk-transfer systems have in place operational procedures and measuring devices for monitoring surveying activities of predicted risks. This includes suitable resource-pooling (e.g., capital), leveraging and taking measurements, based on aggregate information such as exposure, and/or predicted statistically based probable maximum losses (PML).
  • resource-pooling e.g., capital
  • PML predicted statistically based probable maximum losses
  • Discrepancies may exist in relative ranking possibly highlighting factors such as: (i) construction of a superior risk portfolio; (ii) a relatively higher or lower attachment point, relative to other industry sectors or markets, and the possibility of exposure to a greater model risk; and (iii) the application of different model mixes by region-specific peril and different levels of loss modification applied to gross results; (B) exposure assessments regarding catastrophic events extends beyond a predefined property catastrophe threshold.
  • the measures may also assess the potential for a non-accumulated exposure relative to correlated catastrophic losses; (C) Considering supporting second risk-transfer system (e.g., reinsurance systems) or retrocessional protection against catastrophes, to assess the impact of second risk-transfer default; and (D) Monitoring and measuring relative changes of exposure from one year to the next for consistency and reasonableness.
  • the Cat Return in conjunction with other risk exposure data, is also used to assess the adequacy of resources or liquidity that may have been pooled. Liquidity risk is not always mitigated simply by holding additional capital. For automated risk-transfer systems, the ability to pay claims is obviously an important factor and perhaps even more pronounced in the arena of catastrophic risk where large amounts of capital may have to be liquidated at very short notice to pay claims.
  • Examples might include terrorism events or large CAT losses in Japan or the impact on the dollar-yen exchange rate; (B) The ratio of effective asset duration to effective liability duration; or (C) Measuring Gross and Net PML and RDS returns as a function of pooled resources or investments adjusted for encumbrances.
  • pooled resources of risk-transfer systems should amount to such a level that operations can withstand the impact of the occurrence of a combination of extreme, but not inconceivable, adverse events.
  • a well operated risk-transfer system will withstand comprehensive stress and scenario testing procedures in efforts of monitoring resource-pooling adequacy in adverse scenarios as part of its risk-transfer structure and framework. These include procedures for implementing, monitoring and reacting to the outcomes of rigorous, forward-looking stress and scenario testing, suited to identify possible events or cyclical changes in environmental conditions that could adversely impact a risk-transfer system's operation, liability or allocated resources.
  • CAT catastrophic events
  • Such devices or modules are the technical core of automated signaling, handling or operating of a broad range of systems and devices for directly responding to the occurrence of or the risk of the occurrence of CAT events.
  • Catastrophic (CAT) events include events such as natural disasters (e.g., earthquakes, floods, storms, hurricanes and tsunamis) and man-made disasters (e.g., terrorist attacks). These events are typically low-probability, high-cost events. Thus, units and individuals exposed to CAT event risks try to protect themselves by seeking an appropriate risk-transfer.
  • these events are characterized by having a low probability of occurring, i.e. a low statistical probability, associated with a high fluctuation range, and they are difficult to capture with technical means.
  • automated systems that are activated or triggered by the occurrence of CAT events, as e.g. automatically operated risk-transfer systems.
  • Such automated systems have additional technical burdens to be overcome, since an enormous amount of risk-exposed units are normally affected by a single CAT event.
  • these systems must typically handle a large influx of losses that the systems must cover automatically, i.e. so called claims.
  • risk-transfer systems are used to mitigate risk, in CAT-cases, automated pricing or even the availability of risk transfers must depend on measurable and thus parameterizable risk parameters that are associated with what is being ceded or transferred.
  • efficiency in dealing with the consequences of disasters and losses, in particular any related claims involves a variety of additional technical issues and concerns for automated risk-transfer systems. For example, we should be able to mitigate the consequences of a catastrophic event and/or settle any related claims in a timely manner to protect customer relations and for retaining customers.
  • risk-transfer also systems often try to avoid negative publicity related to unresponsiveness or belatedness in settling losses and paying valid claims.
  • risk is often implemented as a combination of predicted frequency and severity, where “frequency” predicts the probability that a loss will occur within a given time frame, and “severity” predicts the cost of such a loss associated with that particular event.
  • frequency predicts the probability that a loss will occur within a given time frame
  • severity predicts the cost of such a loss associated with that particular event.
  • severity is calculated by dividing loss for a given time frame by the number of claims within that same time frame. Breaking risk down into different components and assessing these components appropriately can facilitate better risk operation and help improve the automated prediction of risk for a given situation. A better risk assessment and measurement leads to better risk correlations and better handling of consequences and costs, which can minimize instances of mistakenly overcharging or undercharging for a specific risk-transfer.
  • Risk-transfer systems typically analyze historical CAT, loss and premium data in efforts of generating statistical models that predict risk based primarily or entirely on such predictions. These models are used to assess expected risk. This assessment can then be used by a risk-transfer system to determine if a risk transfer should be performed, and, if such a transfer is performed, what rate should be charged to balance that risk transfer.
  • risk-transfer systems may use different structures as to which traditional risk-transfer factors (or data) have the greatest impact (or largest predictive value) on their associated risk-transfer units, which is why a multitude of models are in use across different risk-transfer systems.
  • An event set consists of a probabilistic set of events for every hazard (hazard set), where each event is matched with an occurrence frequency.
  • hazard set a probabilistic set of events for every hazard (hazard set), where each event is matched with an occurrence frequency.
  • Nat Cat rating engines for assigning a loss to each of the events using vulnerability curves.
  • Events, their frequencies and respective losses are finally summarized in what is called an Event Loss Set (ELS).
  • ELS Event Loss Set
  • Such Event Loss Sets serve as a basis for constructing the exposure curves, which in turn are used for generating the technical pricing of a (re-)insurance contract.
  • the output signaling should allow for providing automated risk-transfer systems in order to optimize resource-pooling (capitalization) at such a level that it is possible to withstand the impact of the occurrence of a combination of extreme, but not inconceivable adverse events.
  • the systems should be able to pass comprehensive stress and scenario testing procedures in terms of monitoring the pooled resource adequacy in adverse scenarios as part of its risk-transfer structure and framework.
  • the proposed system should not exhibit the technical disadvantages of event loss sets (ELS) based on prior art systems using the ELS as a basis for the construction of exposure curves, which in turn are used to generate appropriate output signaling from automated generation of risk-transfer or pricing parameters, i.e. the present invention should also allow for automatically handling non-standard covers or risk-transfer within complex risk-transfer and multiple risk-transfer structures.
  • ELS event loss sets
  • the inventive technical structure should allow for automated capturing of peril-specific temporal clustering, as well as for the accurate reflection of intra-year occurrence patterns.
  • the above-mentioned objects for an automated, inter-arrival-time-based system for automated prediction and exposure signaling of associated, catastrophic risk-event driven or triggered risk-transfer systems for low frequency occurring catastrophic or operational risk events are achieved, particularly, in that, by means of the present invention, any occurring risk events are measured and assigned to a historic hazard set comprising event parameters for each assigned risk event; and risk-exposed units or individuals and/or the automated risk-transfer systems are provided with the corresponding risk-transfer parameters for an automated risk transfer and/or automated risk-event cover via signal transfer of a central, core circuit, and wherein an event loss set is generated by means of the system based on the measured frequencies with associated losses of said risk events of the hazard set, each of said risk events creating a set specific loss, in that a period loss set is assembled recording event losses of the event loss set assigned to generated time stamps, wherein the period loss set provides a corresponding time-based log record of the measured events of the event loss set, wherein the
  • Said distribution does not need to be pre-defined or pre-given but is, as a preferred embodiment variant, estimated by means of the system in the sense that it is the best fitting distribution to the set of data. There is some theoretical evidence favoring the Generalized Pareto, as is indeed supported by the data; however, other distributions may be applied by the system as well.
  • Said estimated or predefined distribution can, e.g., at least comprise peril-specific temporal clustering and seasonal occurrence patterns.
  • Said estimated or predefined distribution can, e.g., further be structured based on relevant time scale factors at least comprising El Nino/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and/or Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) and/or North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and/or global warming return period gradients.
  • the impact of external global large time scale drivers can e.g. be taken into account implicitly by the system by using the observed history for the calibration of the timestamps for atmospheric perils.
  • Said estimated or predefined distribution can, e.g., further be structured by dynamically assigning and measuring leading risk indicators for a dynamic adaption of the occurrence risk.
  • the automated, inter-arrival-time-based system can, e.g., be independently applied to individual natural hazards. Further, temporal correlations between perils can, e.g., be captured automatically through a seasonality dependent distribution structure, if both perils are subject to the related seasonality pattern.
  • the present invention is focused on providing an automated, technical, real-time operational solution for capturing and transferring the risk of complex hazard-driven schemes and automations, especially related to highly complex, natural CAT occurrence structures and risk-transfer schemes. Apart from allowing machine-based interactions, measurements, assessments and predictions involving complex natural large-scale phenomena as CAT events, an automated risk-transfer and risk-transfer parameter generation is one of the key features of the invention.
  • one of the advantages of the present system envisions providing a fully automated risk-transfer system, in particular in the field of connected platforms related to CAT risks. More particularly, it has the technical capability to allow for providing a fully automated risk-transfer system giving the technical structure and scheme for automated and dynamic adaptable risk-transfer in real-time, thereby capturing complex occurrence structures, clustering and large time scale drivers. Further, the system has the advantage that it allows for providing a technical and comprehensive solution that facilitates evaluating and scoring risk-exposed units or individuals based on physically measured data. The invention makes it possible to provide an automated risk-transfer platform (that allows almost fully automated risk transfer, incl.
  • the provider of the second risk-transfer system i.e. the reinsurer or an independent third provider can act as a distributor of the risk-transfers (insurances) through appropriately interconnected applications, in particular mobile (smart phone) applications or embedded devices of risk-transfer or prediction systems.
  • First and second risk-transfer systems are able to analyze the measured data from the hazard event set, individual data from the risk exposed units or individuals and the risk-transfer parameter signal form the system and central, core circuit, respectively, in order to provide a scoring for a specific risk-exposed unit or first risk-transfer system.
  • Such data could also then be transferred to associated first insurance systems, which can give a quote based on the risk-transfer parameter signal or the score obtained.
  • the second risk-transfer system is able to optimize its operational risk-transfer parameters.
  • the inter-arrival time (IAT) structure and method of the system is the backbone of the Period Loss Set (PLS) approach, which has been proven to be a powerful tool for assessing, measuring, predicting, pricing and otherwise steering automated systems, in particular automated risk-transfer systems.
  • PLS Period Loss Set
  • a Period Loss Set can be regarded as an extension of an Event Loss Set.
  • each event is assigned to a point in time (time stamp) rather than matched with an occurrence frequency.
  • a Period Loss Set therefore just a time series of losses.
  • This loss sequence is then applied to an assembly or portfolio of risk-exposed units resulting in annual expected losses.
  • the resulting risk-transfer parameters can also be used as a basis for the consecutive generation of payment transfer parameters (e.g., prices), capacities, cost of capital and others.
  • payment transfer parameters e.g., prices
  • capacities e.g., capacities, cost of capital and others.
  • the system allows for (i) transparent and consistent pricing over portfolios and perilsl, (ii) capacity parameter generation, (iii) capital cost calculation and monitoring, (iv) shortfall prediction and survey, (v) automated pricing of complex non-standard risk-transfer schemes and appropriate contracts (SRIS).
  • SRIS complex non-standard risk-transfer schemes and appropriate contracts
  • IAT inter-arrival times
  • Time stamps are automatically constructed in a way that generated IATs are equal the observed IATs in distribution (cf. FIG. 9 ).
  • the present inventive IAT structure of the system is a unique technical framework throughout the industry. It explicitly introduces the dimension of time into an exposure assessment of a Nat Cat exposure assembly or portfolio.
  • the IAT structure rests on a solid scientific foundation in risk-assessment engineering, natural sciences and mathematics. It is designed to technically cover, on the on hand, peril specific temporal clustering and, on the other hand, seasonal occurrence patterns.
  • inventive system moreover, explicitly allows for incorporating other influencing factors such as El Nino/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and/or Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) and/or North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and/or global warming return period gradients or other large scale drivers.
  • ENSO El Nino/Southern Oscillation
  • AMO Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation
  • NAO North Atlantic Oscillation
  • the estimated or predefined distribution can, e.g., be structured by means of a generalized Pareto distribution (GPD), the GPD distributed IATs fitting the measured or empirical historic hazard set.
  • the GPD arises naturally if events are Poisson distributed with a Gamma distributed random scale parameter ⁇ .
  • the distribution of ⁇ around its mean is set by the externally induced fluctuations of this scale parameter ⁇ .
  • the operational setting of the scale parameter ⁇ can, e.g., comprise at least the technical boundary conditions; i) the scale parameter ⁇ lies within a positive value range, and ii) the scale parameter ⁇ .
  • the physically relevant parameter space for the estimated or predefined distribution as generalized Pareto distribution can, e.g., comprise the technical boundary conditions of (i) a non-negative lower threshold ⁇ of the inter-arrival times, (ii) a positive scale parameter ⁇ , (iii) the mean inter-arrival time exists with a shape parameter fulfilling 0 ⁇ 1, and (iv) is truncated to inter-arrival times less than T.
  • the automated, inter-arrival-time-based system comprises one or more first risk-transfer systems to provide a first risk transfer based on said first, generated risk-transfer parameters from at least some of risk-exposed units to one of the first risk-transfer systems, wherein the first risk-transfer systems comprise a plurality of payment transfer modules configured to receive and store first payment parameters associated with the risk transfer of risk exposures of said risk-exposed units for pooling of their risks, and wherein an occurred and a triggered loss of a risk-exposed unit is automatically covered by the first risk-transfer system based on the first risk-transfer parameters and correlated first payment-transfer parameters.
  • the automated, inter-arrival-time-based system can also comprise a second risk-transfer system to provide a second risk transfer based on generated second risk-transfer parameters from one or more of the first risk-transfer systems to the second risk-transfer system, wherein the second risk-transfer system comprises second payment-transfer modules configured to receive and store second payment parameters for pooling the risks of the first risk-transfer systems associated with risk exposures transferred to the first risk-transfer systems, and wherein an occurred and a triggered loss are automatically covered at least partially by the second risk-transfer system based on the second risk-transfer parameters and correlated second payment-transfer parameters.
  • This alternative embodiment has, inter alia, the advantage that it allows for providing an optimized multi-tier risk-transfer system adapted for real time.
  • the present invention allows for capturing and/or controlling the relevant risk drivers, and for comparing their behavior within the technical operation and context of the automated system. It is possible to automatically capture and score risks according to location and type of the risk-exposed unit, and to automatically analyze and respond to data related to the need for added services, such as risk notifications, risk-reducing improvements, etc.).
  • the present invention further allows for an automated optimization of first and second risk-transfer systems by offering the risk-transfer parameters of the present invention as aggregation signaling.
  • the system comprises means for processing risk-related component data of the risk-exposed units and for providing information regarding the likelihood of said risk exposure to become realized for one or a plurality of the pooled risk-exposed units or individuals, in particular, based on data concerning risk-related units or individuals, and wherein the receipt and preconditioned storage of payments from the first resource pooling system to the second resource pooling system for the transfer of its risk can be determined dynamically, based on the total risk and/or the likelihood of risk exposure of the pooled risk-exposure components.
  • This alternative embodiment has, inter alia, the advantage that the operation of the first and/or second resource pooling system can be dynamically adjusted to the changing conditions of the pooled risk, such as changes in the environmental conditions or risk distribution, or the like, of the pooled risk components.
  • a further advantage is the fact that the system does not require any manual adjustments, if it is operated in different environments, places or countries, because the size of the payments of the risk-exposure components is directly related to the total pooled risk.
  • the number of pooled risk-exposed units and/or individuals is dynamically adjusted via the first risk-transfer system to a range where non-covariant, occurring risks that are covered by the risk-transfer system affect only a relatively small proportion of the total pooled risk-exposure components at any given time.
  • the second risk-transfer system can, for example, dynamically adjust the number of pooled risk shares transferred from first risk-transfer systems to a range, where non-covariant, occurring risks that are covered by the second risk-transfer system affect only a relatively small proportion of the total pooled risk transfers from first risk-transfer systems at any given time.
  • This variant has, inter alia, the advantage that it allows for improving the operational and financial stability of the system.
  • the risk event triggers are dynamically adjusted by means of an operating module based on time-correlated incidence data relative to one or a plurality of the predefined risk events.
  • This alternative embodiment has, inter alia, the advantage that it allows for improving the capture of risk events or for avoiding the occurrence of such events altogether, for example, by improved forecasting systems, etc., to dynamically capture such events by means of the system and dynamically affecting the overall operation of the system based on the total risk of the pooled risk-exposure components.
  • a total parametric payment is allocated with the triggering, and wherein the total allocated payment is transferrable upon a triggering of the occurrence.
  • the predefined total payments can, for example, be leveled to any appropriate, defined total sum, such as a predefined value, or any other sum related to the total transferred risk and the amount of the periodic payments of the risk-exposed motor vehicle.
  • This alternative has, inter alia, the advantage that, for the parametric payments or the payments of predefined amounts, the user can rely on fixed amounts.
  • the parametric payment may allow for an adjusted payment of the total sum that can, for example, depend on the stage of the occurrence of a risk event, as triggered by the system.
  • FIG. 1 shows a block diagram, schematically illustrating an automated, inter-arrival-time-based system 1 for the automated prediction and exposure-signaling of associated, catastrophic risk-event-driven or -triggered risk-transfer systems 11 / 12 , in particular for low frequency catastrophic or operational risk events 311 , . . . , 313 with a complex occurrence structure.
  • system 1 is also applicable to other occurrence structures, for example high statistic events having, for example, an occurrence rate with a complex clustering structure.
  • Occurring risk-events 311 , . . . , 313 are measured by means of the measuring stations or sensors 401 , 402 , . . . , 411 , 412 in loco.
  • the measured sensory data of the measuring devices 401 , 402 , . . . , 411 , 412 are transmitted via an appropriate data transmission network to a central core circuit 10 and assigned to a historic hazard set 31 comprising event parameters for each assigned risk event.
  • the risk-exposed units or individuals 40 , 41 , 42 , . . . and/or the automated risk-transfer systems 11 / 12 or other risk-event-driven or -triggered systems, such as automated alarm systems or exposure-improved, automated expert systems, and the like, are provided with the corresponding risk-transfer parameters or risk-exposure and/or occurrence-prediction parameters.
  • a signal is automatically generated and transferred from the central, core circuit 10 .
  • FIG. 2 shows a block diagram schematically illustrating an exemplary Period Loss Set (PLS) 33 involving three types of perils, EQ: earthquake, FL: flood, and TC/WS: tropical cyclone/windstorm.
  • PLS Period Loss Set
  • FIG. 3 shows a block diagram schematically illustrating: (A) Left: a typical Poisson arrival pattern. The parameters are chosen accordingly in such a manner that, on average, there are 1.2 events within one given year; (B) Right: number of events n (x-axis) vs the probability of more than n events occurring within one given year (y-axis). Note that there is a probability of about 2% that at least 3 events occur within one given year.
  • GPS Generalized Pareto Distribution
  • FIG. 5 a - c show other block diagrams, schematically illustrating seasonality pattern for Tropical Cyclones North America (TCNA) ( FIG. 5 a ), Winter Storm Europe (WSEU) ( FIG. 5 b ) and Flood US ( FIG. 5 c ).
  • TCNA and WSEU have a pronounced seasonality pattern, while this is less significant for food US.
  • FIG. 6 shows a block diagram, schematically illustrating an exemplary generation of time stamps 331 , . . . , 333 .
  • the aim is to capture with probabilistic means the time dimensions for single perils, such as hurricane, flood, and earthquake.
  • the technical goal consists in constructing a series of event times (time stamps 331 , . . . , 333 ), identical to historical event times in a probabilistic (distributional) sense.
  • Each event time can be regarded as its own time stamp 331 , . . . , 333 of a particular event 311 , . . . , 313 , which is, in turn, mapped to it.
  • the structure of generation can be schematically summarized as follows: (1) given a time series of observations of historical events 311 , . . . , 313 , establishing the seasonality pattern by counting how many events fall into which month. While some perils are almost uniformly distributed throughout a given year, other perils, such as WSEU, Flood or TCNA show distinct patterns of occurrence. This is due to their seasonality.
  • System 1 “cleans” the empirical (physical) data for this aspect of seasonality; (2) obtaining the inter-arrival time parameters (IAT) of the adjusted historical data from the cleaned (abstract) data. An estimated or pre-defined Generalized Pareto Distribution (GPD) is matched to this set, giving the estimates for the parameters; i.e.
  • IAT inter-arrival time parameters
  • the parameters are automatically estimated if their fit is reasonably good; (3) given these parameters, a large sample of IATs is generated from the GPD, and from this, the ordered set of abstract time stamps 331 , . . . , 333 is derived; and (4) the seasonality pattern must be re-established. This results in modelled physical time stamps.
  • FIGS. 7 a and 7 b show block diagrams, schematically illustrating an exemplary simulated IAT distribution for two perils, TCNA ( FIG. 7 a ) and WSEU ( FIG. 7 b ). Note that both are subject to a strong seasonality pattern, both being shifted by approximately four months. The distribution of simulated event times (green dots) demonstrates excellent agreement with empirical IATs. The red curve displays the calibrated GPD, step 2 according to FIG. 6 .
  • FIG. 8 shows a block diagram, schematically illustrating in an exemplary manner:
  • FIG. 9 shows a block diagram, schematically illustrating exemplary constructed time stamps in a way that modelled IATs equal observed IATs in distribution.
  • the backbone of the PLS structure 33 is the construction of time stamps 331 , . . . , 333 . This is done by based on the distribution of waiting times between consecutive events 311 , . . . , 313 . These time periods are called inter-arrival times (IAT).
  • IAT inter-arrival times
  • FIG. 1 schematically illustrates an architecture for a possible implementation of an embodiment of the automated, inter-arrival-time-based system 1 for automated prediction and exposure signaling of associated, catastrophic risk-event-driven or -triggered systems; in particular, automated risk-transfer 11 / 12 transferring risks of catastrophic or operational risk events 311 , . . . , 313 with a complex, low frequency structure.
  • system 1 is also applicable to other occurrence structures, for example high statistic events that have, however, an occurrence rate with a complex clustering structure.
  • Occurring risk-events 311 , . . . , 313 are measured by means of measuring stations or sensors 90 , 91 , 92 , . . .
  • the measured sensory data 911 , 912 , 913 , . . . of the measuring devices 90 , 91 , 92 , . . . / 401 , 402 , . . . , 411 , 412 are transmitted via an appropriate data transmission network 2 to a central core circuit 10 and assigned to a historic hazard set 31 comprising event parameters for each assigned risk-event.
  • a central core circuit 10 To capture and measure the appropriate measured sensory data 911 , 912 , 913 , . . .
  • the central core circuit 10 comprises a risk-event driven core aggregator 100 with measuring data-driven triggers 1001 for triggering, capturing, and monitoring in the data flow pathway 921 , 922 , 923 , . . . / 421 , . . . , 425 of the sensors 90 , 91 , 92 , . . . / 401 , . . . , 405 and/or measuring devices 411 , . . . , 415 of the risk-exposed units or individuals 41 , . . . , 45
  • measuring devices 911 , 912 , 913 , . . . / 411 , . . . , 415 can, e.g., comprise at least seismometers or seismographs for measuring any ground motion, including seismic waves generated by earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and other seismic sources, stream gauges in key locations across a specified region, measuring during times of flooding how high the water has risen above the gauges to determine flood levels, measuring devices for establishing wind strength, e.g.
  • the central core circuit 10 further comprises a trigger-driven score module 104 measuring and/or generating a single or a compound set of variable scoring parameters 311 , . . . , 313 of a hazard, i.e. measuring parameters of an occurring hazard risk-event profiling the occurrence and/or style and/or environmental condition of a hazard based upon the triggered, captured, and monitored measuring parameters or environmental parameters.
  • the risk-exposed units or individuals 40 , 41 , 42 , . . . and/or the automated risk-transfer systems 11 / 12 or other risk-event-driven or -triggered systems, such as automated alarm systems or exposure-improving automated expert-systems, and the like, are provided with corresponding risk-transfer parameters or risk-exposure and/or occurrence-prediction parameters.
  • a signal is automatically generated and transferred from the central core circuit 10 to the risk-exposed units and/or individuals 40 , 41 , 42 , . . . and/or the automated risk-transfer systems 11 / 12 .
  • an event loss set 32 is generated based on the measured frequencies with associated losses 321 , . . . , 323 of said risk events 311 , . . . , 313 of the hazard set 31 , wherein each of said risk events 311 , . . . , 313 creates a set specific loss 321 , . . . , 323 .
  • a period loss set 33 is assembled recording event losses 321 , . . . , 323 associated with the risk events 311 , . . . , 313 of the event loss set (ELS) 32 assigned to generated time stamps 331 , . . . , 333 .
  • the period loss set (PLS) 33 provides a corresponding time-based log record of the measured and/or probabilistically modelled events of the event loss set (ELS) 32 , wherein the time stamps 331 , . . . , 333 , comprising a sequence of encoded time data, are generated and allocated to each event 321 , . . . , 323 of the event loss set (ELS) 32 , and wherein a specific time stamp 331 , . . . , 333 identifies an occurrence as a point in time when a specific event is measured.
  • the time stamps 331 , . . . , 333 are structured using an automatically and/or dynamically estimated or predefined distribution 1011 of correspondingly generated inter-arrival times parameters (IAT).
  • Said distribution 1011 does not need to be pre-defined or pre-given but is, as one preferred embodiment variant, automatically estimated by means of the system in the sense that it is the best fitting distribution for the set of data. There is some theoretical evidence favoring the Generalized Pareto distribution, as is indeed shown in the data; however, other distributions 1011 may be estimated, selected and/or applied by the system 1 as well.
  • An inter-arrival times parameter (IAT) captures a waiting time between consecutive events 311 , . . .
  • the waiting times (IAT) measure the time intervals between two successive measured occurrences of risk-events 311 , . . . , 313 , the occurrence of risk-events 311 , . . . , 313 being trackable over time by means of the time intervals.
  • the estimated or predefined distribution 1011 can at least comprise peril-specific temporal clustering 1031 and/or seasonal occurrence patterns.
  • Said estimated or predefined distribution 1011 can further be structured based on relevant time scale factors 1033 at least comprising El Nino/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and/or Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) and/or North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and/or global warming return period gradients.
  • the impact of external global large time scale drivers 1034 can, e.g., be taken into account implicitly by the system 1 by using the observed history for the calibration of the time stamps 331 , . . . , 333 for atmospheric perils.
  • Said estimated or predefined distribution 1011 can, e.g., be further structured by dynamically assigning and measuring leading risk indicators for the dynamic adaption of the occurrence risk.
  • a negative binomial distribution structure is often used in the aggregation if the clustering of events needs to be taken into account.
  • the generalized Pareto inter-arrival times and negative binomial distributions in a sense that the negative binomial distribution is obtained by mixing a Poisson distribution with a Gamma distribution, i.e. if n ⁇ Poi( ⁇ )
  • the construction and application of a negative binomial distribution is thus the same as the construction of the generalized Poisson distribution in the inter-arrival time domain.
  • Temporal correlations between perils can be captured automatically by means of the system through a seasonality-dependent distribution structure, if both perils are subject to the related seasonality pattern. It is to be noted that, during the last years, the proportion of systems and technical solutions with temporal risk-transfer conditions from non-straight-forward covers, such as 2-nd event covers, multi-year and seasonal covers, has increased significantly. For pricing as well as for capacity management, it is therefore important to explicitly consider the time dimension. However, with prior art systems, up-to-now, it has technically not been possible to automated capture seasonal occurrence patterns.
  • 333 structure of the system 1 technically allows for probabilistically capturing and predicting the arrival times of events in such a way that the set 33 of time stamps 331 , . . . , 333 is identical with observed and physically measured data, in distribution 1011 .
  • the structure is based on inter-arrival times (IAT), i.e. the time periods between successive event times 331 , . . . , 333 .
  • IAT inter-arrival times
  • the present technical solution and system 1 provide a solid engineering and scientific foundation in natural sciences, as well as in mathematics.
  • One of the focus areas of the present inventive system lies in measuring, predicting, capturing and modelling the arrival times of natural catastrophes.
  • the usage of system 1 is not restricted to natural catastrophic (NatCat) events. It is designed to cover both: peril specific temporal clustering and seasonal occurrence patterns.
  • the technical structure of the system also allows for incorporating other influencing factors, such as the above mentioned AMO, ENSO, explicitly.
  • an Event Set consists of a probabilistic set of events for every hazard (hazard set), where each event is provided with an occurrence frequency.
  • hazard set a probabilistic set of events for every hazard (hazard set), where each event is provided with an occurrence frequency.
  • these systems assign a loss to each of the events with the help of vulnerability curves.
  • Events, their frequencies and respective losses are finally summarized in what is called an Event Loss Set (ELS) 32 .
  • ELS Event Loss Set
  • Such Event Loss Sets 32 serve as a basis for the construction of the exposure curves, which, in turn, are used for the generation of the technical risk-transfer and payment-transfer (pricing) parameters of a respective risk-transfer ((re-)insurance) system.
  • the use of exposure curves in the exposure calculation for standard covers is transparent and very efficient, this prior art approach has limitations, when it comes to capturing or generating complicated risk-transfer structures. As such non-standard covers have gained in importance in recent years, so has the need for complementing the current technical framework and extending it in view of new technical requirements.
  • the present invention provides the present, new probabilistic structure for automated exposure measuring, prediction and modelling, which is called the Period Loss Set (PLS) 33 .
  • PLS Period Loss Set
  • a Period Loss Set (PLS) 33 is an extension of an Event Loss Set (ELS) 32 . Its construction proceeds in essentially three steps: (1) starting from the hazard set, each event in it creates a portfolio-specific loss. From the corresponding ELS 32 , the loss frequency curve can be constructed. The next step introduces time explicitly; (2) the time points (time stamps) at which events happen are modelled by the invention-specific inter-arrival time (IAT) structure. This structure is described in detail below. The most important technical “constraint” for the generated time-stamps 331 , . . .
  • 333 is that predicted or modelled inter-arrival times (IAT) must equal observed inter-arrival times (IAT) in distribution 1011 ; (3) Once the time stamps 331 , . . . , 333 have been set, a loss from the ELS 32 is allocated to each one. For this, see FIG. 2 showing a block diagram, schematically illustrating an exemplary Period Loss Set (PLS) 33 involving three types of perils, EQ: earthquake, FL: flood, and TC/WS: tropical cyclone/windstorm.
  • PLS Period Loss Set
  • First and/or second risk-transfer parameters and/or first and/or second payment-transfer parameters can then be generated on the PLS 33 for the relevant time period (for example, one year), yielding an accurate loss prediction or estimate even for complicated aggregate risk-transfer ((re)insurance) structures.
  • the length of the predicted period is needed to render stable metrics and operational conditions, such as annual expected loss and expected shortfall.
  • the backbone of the technical approach by means of the PLS 33 structure is the construction of time stamps 331 , . . . , 333 . Building the PLS 33 on time stamps 331 , . . .
  • time stamps 331 , . . . , 333 introduces explicitly the dimension of time into exposure measuring, predicting and modelling.
  • the time dimension only comes into play through the frequency model in the aggregation.
  • the time stamps 331 , . . . , 333 allow for both, the representation of peril-specific temporal clustering as well as for the accurate reflection of intra-year occurrence patterns. This is possible because the invention probabilistically models the time dimension for each peril.
  • the time stamp 331 , . . . , 333 structure applies independently to individual natural hazards. Temporal correlations between perils arise naturally through seasonality if both perils are subject to the related seasonality pattern.
  • the impact of external global large time scale drivers is not explicitly captured. It has to be pointed out, however, that these drivers are taken into account implicitly by using the observed history for the calibration of the time stamps 331 , . . . , 333 for atmospheric perils. Due to its broad applicability, PLS 33 allows for equal treatment of different perils leading to consistent risk transfer and pricing of the entire Nat Cat assembly or portfolio. It therefore guarantees consistency of risk-transfer parameters, payment-transfer parameters (pricing) as well as of annual aggregation.
  • the current setting moreover serves as a basis for future extensions or requirements, such as, e.g., the inclusion of earthquake aftershocks, explicit ENSO modelling, or temporal inter-peril correlation.
  • the estimated or predefined distribution 1011 can preferably be structured by means of a generalized Pareto distribution (GPD), the GPD distributed IATs fitting the measured or empirical historic hazard set 31 .
  • the GPD arises naturally in the case when events are Poisson distributed with a Gamma 10112 distributed random scale parameter ⁇ .
  • the distribution 1011 of ⁇ around its mean is set by the externally induced fluctuations of this scale parameter ⁇ .
  • the operational setting of the scale parameter ⁇ can, e.g., comprise at least the technical boundary conditions i) the scale parameter ⁇ does lie within a positive value range, and ii) the scale parameter ⁇ takes a unique most probable value, wherein, by means of condition i and ii, said estimated or predefined distribution is set to a unimodal distribution with non-negative support for the random scale parameter ⁇ .
  • the physically relevant parameter space for the estimated or predefined distribution as generalized Pareto distribution can, e.g., comprise the technical boundary conditions of (i) a non-negative lower threshold ⁇ of the inter-arrival times, (ii) a positive scale parameter ⁇ , (iii) the mean inter-arrival time exists with a shape parameter fulfilling 0 ⁇ 1, and (iv) is truncated to inter-arrival times less than T.
  • the corresponding risk-transfer parameters for the signal transfer are assessed and generated by the central, core circuit 10 based on said period loss set 33 comprising the time-stamps parameters 331 , . . . , 333 and losses 321 , . . . , 323 for a specific time frame.
  • the background of the Inter-Arrival Time (IAT) distribution and the inventive technical structure is characterized by an idealized stochastic structure for events that occur randomly in time at a particular location, which is a renewal process.
  • the corresponding temporal events are generically referred to as “arrivals.”
  • Time intervals between successive arrivals are called inter-arrival times (IAT).
  • the basic assumption is that the inter-arrival times (IAT) are independently and identically distributed.
  • the process borrows its basic properties from the distribution of inter-arrival times (IAT).
  • the most common renewal process is a Poisson process. It is characterized by the fact that inter-arrival times are distributed according to an exponential distribution with scale parameter ⁇ .
  • the Poisson process is often chosen as an underlying structure, since it provides a series of properties that make processing easier.
  • inter-arrival times distributions 1011 of the class of the generalized Pareto distribution are employed.
  • the reasons for the choice of the GPD for the distribution 1011 of IATs are two-fold. First, empirical data show a very good agreement of observed data and GPD distributed IATs. Second, there is theoretical support for this choice, which will be outlined below. Some relevant properties and implications are also discussed that follow from the use of the GPD as estimated or predefined distributions 1011 .
  • Basic knowledge about ⁇ includes that (i) ⁇ is non-negative, while (ii) ⁇ has a unique most probable value. These conditions can be reflected by using a uni-modal distribution with non-negative support for the random variable ⁇ .
  • a distribution which meets the requirements outlined above, is the Gamma distribution having a shape parameter ⁇ 1 and a scale parameter ⁇ >0. If it is assumed that the basic process is a Poisson renewal process, whose scale parameter is random and distributed according to a Gamma distribution, then the inter-arrival times (IAT) ⁇ are distributed according to a generalized Pareto distribution (GPD). if ⁇ ⁇ Exp( ⁇ )
  • the GPD arises as the mixture of an exponential and a gamma distribution. Since in the limit of vanishing ⁇ the GPD becomes an exponential distribution, the GPD renewal process generalizes the Poisson process.
  • the physically relevant parameter space for the generalized Pareto distribution is governed by the following conditions: For obvious reasons, the lower threshold of the inter-arrival times is zero, hence ⁇ 0. Further, the condition on the Gamma function has been that it is required to have a unique most probable value. This implies that the mode of the function must exist, which is the case for ⁇ 1. If it is required that, in addition, the mean inter-arrival time exists, the shape parameter must fulfill 0 ⁇ 1.
  • the physically relevant parameter space for the GPD is therefore given by (i) Scale: ⁇ >0, (ii) Shape: 0 ⁇ 1, (iii) Location: ⁇ 0.
  • the mean inter-arrival time for a GPD renewal process is set by:
  • the generation of the time stamps 331 , . . . , 333 needs to take into account a certain time resolution required for example for appropriate risk-transfer parameters or payment transfer parameters (pricing) purposes.
  • This may for instance be a reporting threshold between two successive events which, in reality, can e.g. be set in the order of hours.
  • the lower threshold for the inter-arrival times is already contained in the generalized Pareto distribution, there might be demand for an upper limit of inter-arrival times as well. This may be for example the case in the context of in-house built structures and models. Therefore, for the inventive system, the distribution 1011 of IATs is technically truncated at some value truncation T, with T> ⁇ .
  • the resulting truncated generalized Pareto distribution GPD T ( ⁇ , ⁇ , ⁇ , T) is the one which is used for the time stamp 331 , . . . , 333 structuring in the PLS 33 .
  • the parametrization is intentionally restricted to the physically relevant parameter space, where the parameters are: location ⁇ (0, ⁇ ); scale ⁇ (0, ⁇ ); shape ⁇ (0, 1); truncation point T ⁇ ( ⁇ ; ⁇ ); the support is ⁇ x ⁇ T; the probability density function (PDF) being the density of a continuous random variable and giving the relative likelihood for this random variable to take on a given value, can be taken here as
  • h T ⁇ ( x ) 1 H ⁇ ( T ) ⁇ 1 ⁇ ⁇ ( 1 + ⁇ ⁇ x - ⁇ ⁇ ) - 1 / ⁇ - 1 ;
  • CDF cumulative distribution function
  • H T ⁇ ( x ) 1 - 1 H ⁇ ( T ) ⁇ ( 1 + ⁇ ⁇ x - ⁇ ⁇ ) - 1 / ⁇ ;
  • tr(., T) The truncation function tr(., T) is strictly increasing and concave, while tr(., T) 1 for ⁇ .
  • the resulting truncated generalized Pareto distribution GPD T ( ⁇ , ⁇ , ⁇ , T) is the one which is used for the time stamp 331 , . . . , 333 structuring in the PLS 33 .
  • Clustering in the temporal and/or in the spatial domains, seems to be a ubiquitous phenomenon in nature. The physical reasons for clustering are numerous. Some trace back to complex dependencies within large scale complex systems. Historical data shows the existence of temporal clustering for various perils. For an accurate capturing of the time dimension for these natural hazards, it is therefore crucial to have a structuring framework in place that is able to accommodate temporal clustering.
  • FIG. 3 shows a block diagram schematically illustrating: (A) Left: a typical Poisson arrival pattern. Parameters are chosen, so that, in the mean, there are 1.2 events within one year; (B) Right: number of events n (x-axis) vs probability, where the occurrence of the total number n of events would be 1. Note that there is a probability of about 2% to find at least 3 events within one year.
  • the estimated or predefined IAT distribution 1011 is a GPD
  • a simple measure for clustering which is the shape parameter ⁇ governing the decay of the GPD.
  • the degree of clustering is directly related to the uncertainty of the scale parameter ⁇ .
  • This relation can be rephrased as: the larger the uncertainty of the Poisson (scale) parameter, the stronger the clustering.
  • the parameter ⁇ only vanishes if the uncertainty of the Gamma distribution vanishes, which is the case if ⁇ for a fixed ⁇ . Therefore, a Poisson process arises in the limit of complete knowledge about the scale parameter ⁇ . In other words:
  • GPS Generalized Pareto Distribution
  • the expected inter-arrival time parameter is independent of the time t elapsed since the last event, which reverberates the fact that the Poisson process is memoryless.
  • ⁇ >0 it is observed that the expected IAT until the next event increases in both parameters, elapsed time since the last event t and clustering degree ⁇ . This means in particular, that for ⁇ >0, the mean time until the next event increases, the further back in the past the last event has occurred.
  • This condition can technically be used for the generation and selection of the distribution function ⁇ t , i.e. of the inter-arrival times distribution conditioned on the time elapsed since the last event being t, as
  • ⁇ t ⁇ ( t ) ⁇ ⁇ ( ⁇
  • ⁇ > t ) ⁇ ⁇ ( t + ⁇ ) ⁇ t ⁇ ⁇ du ⁇ ⁇ ⁇ ⁇ ( u )
  • the system is able to generate the expected value for the inter-arrival time given that t is the time elapsed since the last event as
  • the average time to the next event indeed depends on the shape parameter as
  • FIG. 5 a - c show block diagrams schematically illustrating seasonality pattern for Tropical Cyclones North America (TCNA) ( FIG. 5 a ), Winter Storm Europe (WSEU) ( FIG. 5 b ) and Flood US ( FIG. 5 c ).
  • TCNA Tropical Cyclones North America
  • WSEU Winter Storm Europe
  • FIG. 5 b Flood US
  • TCNA and WSEU have a pronounced seasonality pattern, while this is less significant for Flood US. While being interested in inter-arrival times, the question emerges whether seasonality patterns show up in the distribution of IATs. The answer is yes. As seen in FIG. 5 , the distribution of empirical IATs (blue dots) shows a “knee-like” deviation from the underlying GDP (red curve). The more pronounced the seasonality pattern is, the more pronounced is the “knee”. Therefore, structuring and modelling IATs requires taking into account the seasonality pattern of a peril.
  • the seasonality pattern is inscribed into the random process generating IATs by applying a transformation S ⁇ 1 , for details see FIG. 4 .
  • This local scaling is done in such a way that a month in which no events arrive has weight zero. Analogously, the month's weight is higher, the higher the likelihood that an event may arrive during that month.
  • the action of the local scaling transformation is to distribute the event times 331 , . . . , 333 over a year so that the seasonality pattern is reproduced—by construction.
  • the action of this transformation is displayed in FIG. 8 showing a block diagram that schematically illustrates an example: (A) Left: the “time” axis (black dots) is mapped on the seasonality adjusted time axis.
  • the inventive system is based on measured and thus observed events, whose arrival times are physical entities, i.e. years, month.
  • the system 1 generates and simulates arrival times in abstract parameter space. Therefore, the system's structure has to construct a relation between physical time and abstract time.
  • the formal difference between both is that physical time has a dimension such as month or hours, while the instances in abstract time are dimensionless; actually they are real numbers. Thus there are technically two levels, which have to be clearly distinguished.
  • f m denotes the numbers of arrivals in the m-th month.
  • ⁇ f m ⁇ is a partition of the unit interval and approximates the probability for an arrival in that month.
  • the local time transformation S is defined by
  • This transformation structure gives each (physical) ‘month’ a length in the simulation domain, which equals the empirical arrival frequency in that month. Months in which one observes many events, obtain a (relatively) larger portion of the simulation unit.
  • the inverse transformation S ⁇ 1 allows to inscribe the empirical seasonality pattern in the system's event generation, which locally scales the ‘time’ axis according to the seasonality pattern.
  • the mapping S for WSEU is indicated by the series of the red dots in FIG. 8 , right. These should be compared with the seasonality pattern in FIG. 5 a .
  • Windstorms have zero frequency in months 5 to 8; months 5 to 8 have bins with width 0. Obviously, if the seasonal pattern is (almost) homogeneous, i.e. frequencies are the same for all month, then all bins have (almost) the same size, reverberating the fact that all month have (almost) identical probability. This means that S is (close to) a linear mapping. It is important to note, that the mapping S is uniquely determined by the observed data. No further modelling or technical calibration is needed.
  • System 1 is now prepared to automatically capture and model time stamps 331 , . . . , 333 .
  • the aim is to probabilistically structure the time dimension for single perils, such as hurricane, flood, and earthquake.
  • the aim is to construct a series of event times (time stamps 331 , . . . , 333 ), which is identical to historical event time in a probabilistic (distributional) sense.
  • Each event time can be regarded as the time stamp 331 , . . . , 333 of a particular event 311 , . . . , 313 , which is then mapped to it.
  • the modelling structure can schematically be summarized as: (1) given a time series of observations of historical events 311 , . .
  • the system 1 “cleans” the empirical (physical) data for this seasonality; (2) From the cleaned (abstract) data, IATs of the adjusted historical data are obtained. This set is automatically matched to a GPD.
  • FIG. 6 shows a block diagram schematically illustrating such an exemplary generation of time-stamps 331 , . . . , 333 .
  • FIGS. 7 a and 7 b show the simulated IAT distribution 1011 for two perils, TCNA ( 7 a ) and WSEU ( 7 b ). Note that both are subject to a strong seasonality pattern, both being shifted by approximately four months.
  • the distribution of simulated event times 1011 shows an excellent agreement with empirical IATs.
  • the red curve displays the calibrated GPD due to step 2 , as discussed above.
  • the sample size in the simulation is 2 mio in both bases.
  • the red curve shows the GDP, calibrated to the empirical IATs.
  • the automated, inter-arrival-time-based system 1 can, for example, comprise one or more first risk-transfer systems 11 to provide a first risk-transfer based on said first, generated risk transfer parameters from at least some of risk-exposed units 41 , . . . , 45 and/or individual to one of the first risk-transfer systems 11 .
  • the first risk-transfer systems 11 can, e.g., comprise a plurality of payment transfer modules 113 configured to receive and store 112 first payment parameters 1121 , . . . , 1125 associated with risk-transfer of risk exposures 5 of said risk-exposed units 41 , . . . , 45 for a pooling of their risks 51 , . . . , 55 .
  • the automated, inter-arrival-time-based system 1 can further, e.g., comprise a second risk-transfer system 12 for providing a second risk-transfer based on generated second risk-transfer parameters 511 , . . . , 515 from one or more of the first risk-transfer systems 11 to the second risk-transfer system 12 .
  • the second risk-transfer system 12 can, e.g., comprise second payment transfer modules 123 configured to receive and store 122 second payment parameters 1221 , . . . , 1225 for a pooling of the risks of the first risk-transfer systems 11 associated with risk exposures transferred to the first risk-transfer systems 11 .
  • An occurred and triggered loss is automatically covered at least partially by the second risk-transfer system 12 based on the second risk transfer parameters 511 , . . . , 515 and correlated second payment transfer parameters 1221 , . . . , 1225 .

Landscapes

  • Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
  • Business, Economics & Management (AREA)
  • Theoretical Computer Science (AREA)
  • Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
  • General Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
  • Finance (AREA)
  • Accounting & Taxation (AREA)
  • General Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
  • Mathematical Physics (AREA)
  • Artificial Intelligence (AREA)
  • General Business, Economics & Management (AREA)
  • Technology Law (AREA)
  • Computing Systems (AREA)
  • Evolutionary Computation (AREA)
  • Data Mining & Analysis (AREA)
  • Software Systems (AREA)
  • Strategic Management (AREA)
  • Marketing (AREA)
  • Economics (AREA)
  • Development Economics (AREA)
  • Computational Linguistics (AREA)
  • Probability & Statistics with Applications (AREA)
  • Algebra (AREA)
  • Mathematical Analysis (AREA)
  • Computational Mathematics (AREA)
  • Pure & Applied Mathematics (AREA)
  • Mathematical Optimization (AREA)
  • Management, Administration, Business Operations System, And Electronic Commerce (AREA)
US15/593,485 2016-10-21 2017-05-12 Inter-arrival times triggered, probabilistic risk transfer system and a corresponding method thereof Active 2038-07-26 US10949924B2 (en)

Applications Claiming Priority (1)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
PCT/EP2016/075440 WO2018072855A1 (en) 2016-10-21 2016-10-21 Inter-arrival times triggered, probabilistic risk-transfer system and a corresponding method thereof

Related Parent Applications (1)

Application Number Title Priority Date Filing Date
PCT/EP2016/075440 Continuation WO2018072855A1 (en) 2016-10-21 2016-10-21 Inter-arrival times triggered, probabilistic risk-transfer system and a corresponding method thereof

Publications (2)

Publication Number Publication Date
US20180114272A1 US20180114272A1 (en) 2018-04-26
US10949924B2 true US10949924B2 (en) 2021-03-16

Family

ID=57200000

Family Applications (1)

Application Number Title Priority Date Filing Date
US15/593,485 Active 2038-07-26 US10949924B2 (en) 2016-10-21 2017-05-12 Inter-arrival times triggered, probabilistic risk transfer system and a corresponding method thereof

Country Status (4)

Country Link
US (1) US10949924B2 (zh)
EP (1) EP3529770A1 (zh)
CN (1) CN109997164A (zh)
WO (2) WO2018072855A1 (zh)

Families Citing this family (10)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
EP3446265A1 (en) * 2016-04-20 2019-02-27 Swiss Reinsurance Company Ltd. Dynamically triggered insurance system based on a floating recoverable basis and corresponding method
EP3803767A1 (en) 2018-06-05 2021-04-14 Swiss Reinsurance Company Ltd. Risk splitter and risk quantifying forecast system using a structured forward-looking simulation technique quantifying clashing, long-tail risk events causing casualty loss accumulation and high earning volatility, and method thereof
BR112021001217A2 (pt) * 2018-07-25 2021-04-27 Resilience Financing Inc. método de negócios, sistema para incentivar uma mitigação, melhoramento ou um projeto de combinação, e programa de computador
CN110443468B (zh) * 2019-07-18 2023-04-18 天津大学 一种山洪灾害脆弱性多测度评估方法
CN110727026B (zh) * 2019-10-10 2021-05-28 太原理工大学 一种基于地震-海啸连续作用的非弹性位移比谱模型
CN110956309A (zh) * 2019-10-30 2020-04-03 南京大学 基于crf和lstm的流程活动预测方法
US10999176B1 (en) * 2020-02-16 2021-05-04 Mellanox Technologies Tlv Ltd. Burst score
CN115668265A (zh) * 2020-03-18 2023-01-31 瑞士再保险有限公司 为操纵和调整承保标的的风险驱动组合提供前瞻和后顾度量的风险转移配置器和模拟引擎及其方法
EP4158582A1 (en) * 2020-06-01 2023-04-05 Swiss Reinsurance Company Ltd. Digital channel for automated parameter-driven, scenario-based risk-measurement, classification and underwriting in fragmented, unstructured data environments and corresponding method thereof
WO2023051904A1 (en) * 2021-09-29 2023-04-06 Swiss Reinsurance Company Ltd. Measuring and control system measuring sensor equipped smart home perils and individual safety scores using digital home objects and mutual calibrated measuring parameter values, and method thereof

Citations (13)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US4766539A (en) * 1985-03-08 1988-08-23 Fox Henry L Method of determining the premium for and writing a policy insuring against specified weather conditions
US20050027571A1 (en) * 2003-07-30 2005-02-03 International Business Machines Corporation Method and apparatus for risk assessment for a disaster recovery process
US20080103841A1 (en) * 2006-10-27 2008-05-01 Hartford Fire Insurance Company Index and risk-linked reinsurance product
US20080172262A1 (en) * 2007-01-12 2008-07-17 Lianjun An Method and System for Disaster Mitigation Planning and Business Impact Assessment
US7523065B2 (en) * 2001-12-12 2009-04-21 Asset Trust, Inc. Risk transfer supply chain system
US7722055B2 (en) * 2007-06-18 2010-05-25 Arvinmeritor Technology, Llc Failsafe valve for active roll control
US20120143633A1 (en) * 2010-12-03 2012-06-07 Swiss Reinsurance Company, Ltd. System and method for forecasting frequencies associated to future loss and for related automated operation of loss resolving units
US8290793B2 (en) * 2006-01-23 2012-10-16 Swiss Reinsurance Company Ltd. Method and system for determining a risk of losses
US20140095425A1 (en) * 2012-09-28 2014-04-03 Sphere Of Influence, Inc. System and method for predicting events
US20140149325A1 (en) * 2011-05-24 2014-05-29 Isis Innovation Limited System monitor and method of system monitoring
US9020875B1 (en) * 2012-01-23 2015-04-28 Hrl Laboratories, Llc Catastrophe prediction via estimated network autocorrelation
US20170126712A1 (en) * 2015-10-28 2017-05-04 Fractal Industries, Inc. Detection mitigation and remediation of cyberattacks employing an advanced cyber-decision platform
US20170132537A1 (en) * 2014-03-31 2017-05-11 Imperial Innovations Limited A computer implemented method of deriving performance from a local model

Family Cites Families (6)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
CN102122822A (zh) * 2010-01-07 2011-07-13 陈栋新 基于前一工作日与节假日的变电站电压无功综合控制方法
WO2011088891A1 (en) * 2010-01-19 2011-07-28 Swiss Reinsurance Company Method and system for automated location dependent natural disaster forecast
CN102073785B (zh) * 2010-11-26 2013-02-27 哈尔滨工程大学 基于广义动态模糊神经网络的燃气日负荷组合预报方法
AU2014388092A1 (en) * 2014-03-26 2016-09-29 Swiss Reinsurance Company Ltd. System for the measurement and automated accumulation of diverging cyber risks, and corresponding method thereof
WO2015144241A1 (en) * 2014-03-28 2015-10-01 Swiss Reinsurance Company Ltd. Adaptive coupling-system based on a flexible risk transfer structure and corresponding method thereof
JP6404457B2 (ja) * 2014-08-26 2018-10-17 スイス リインシュランス カンパニー リミテッド 災害リスク管理及び資金調達システム、並びにその対応する方法

Patent Citations (13)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US4766539A (en) * 1985-03-08 1988-08-23 Fox Henry L Method of determining the premium for and writing a policy insuring against specified weather conditions
US7523065B2 (en) * 2001-12-12 2009-04-21 Asset Trust, Inc. Risk transfer supply chain system
US20050027571A1 (en) * 2003-07-30 2005-02-03 International Business Machines Corporation Method and apparatus for risk assessment for a disaster recovery process
US8290793B2 (en) * 2006-01-23 2012-10-16 Swiss Reinsurance Company Ltd. Method and system for determining a risk of losses
US20080103841A1 (en) * 2006-10-27 2008-05-01 Hartford Fire Insurance Company Index and risk-linked reinsurance product
US20080172262A1 (en) * 2007-01-12 2008-07-17 Lianjun An Method and System for Disaster Mitigation Planning and Business Impact Assessment
US7722055B2 (en) * 2007-06-18 2010-05-25 Arvinmeritor Technology, Llc Failsafe valve for active roll control
US20120143633A1 (en) * 2010-12-03 2012-06-07 Swiss Reinsurance Company, Ltd. System and method for forecasting frequencies associated to future loss and for related automated operation of loss resolving units
US20140149325A1 (en) * 2011-05-24 2014-05-29 Isis Innovation Limited System monitor and method of system monitoring
US9020875B1 (en) * 2012-01-23 2015-04-28 Hrl Laboratories, Llc Catastrophe prediction via estimated network autocorrelation
US20140095425A1 (en) * 2012-09-28 2014-04-03 Sphere Of Influence, Inc. System and method for predicting events
US20170132537A1 (en) * 2014-03-31 2017-05-11 Imperial Innovations Limited A computer implemented method of deriving performance from a local model
US20170126712A1 (en) * 2015-10-28 2017-05-04 Fractal Industries, Inc. Detection mitigation and remediation of cyberattacks employing an advanced cyber-decision platform

Non-Patent Citations (1)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Title
Michael E. Olczyk; "Flood Risk Perception in the red river basin, Manitoba implications for hazard and disaster management"; University of Manitoba; Winnipeg. (Year: 2004). *

Also Published As

Publication number Publication date
WO2018072855A1 (en) 2018-04-26
EP3529770A1 (en) 2019-08-28
US20180114272A1 (en) 2018-04-26
WO2018073457A1 (en) 2018-04-26
CN109997164A (zh) 2019-07-09

Similar Documents

Publication Publication Date Title
US10949924B2 (en) Inter-arrival times triggered, probabilistic risk transfer system and a corresponding method thereof
Vugrin et al. Resilience Metrics for the Electric Power System: A Performance-Based Approach.
JP5122806B2 (ja) 地震イベントの地域的影響を決定するためのコンピュータシステム及び方法
Grossi et al. An introduction to catastrophe models and insurance
JP5502084B2 (ja) 地震損害予測及び回避システム並びにその方法
Corbane et al. Pan-European seismic risk assessment: a proof of concept using the Earthquake Loss Estimation Routine (ELER)
US20050027571A1 (en) Method and apparatus for risk assessment for a disaster recovery process
WO2007098268A2 (en) Portfolio management system with gradient display features
WO2016029929A1 (en) Disaster risk management and financing system, and corresponding method thereof
Plantinga et al. Overview of empirical methods
Liu et al. The danger of mapping risk from multiple natural hazards
US11494848B2 (en) Risk-transfer configurator and simulation engine providing forward- and backward-looking measures for steering and adjustments of risk-driven portfolios of underwriting objects and method thereof
Bonnafous et al. A water risk index for portfolio exposure to climatic extremes: Conceptualization and an application to the mining industry
Hsu et al. A probabilistic approach for earthquake risk assessment based on an engineering insurance portfolio
Delalay et al. Methodology for future flood assessment in terms of economic damage: Development and application for a case study in Nepal
Toland et al. A conceptual framework for estimation of initial emergency food and water resource requirements in disasters
Mornet et al. Wind storm risk management: sensitivity of return period calculations and spread on the territory
Hartmann-Wendels et al. Is the regulatory downturn LGD adequate? Performance analysis and alternative methods
US20220129805A1 (en) Digital platform for automated assessing and rating of construction and erection risks, and method thereof
KR102475835B1 (ko) 웹 기반 가뭄아틀라스 시스템
Sanderson et al. A spatially explicit decision support framework for parcel-and community-level resilience assessment using Bayesian networks
Eaves et al. Modelling economic risk to sea‐level rise and storms at the coastal margin
Alhamid et al. Tsunami insurance portfolio optimization for coastal residential buildings under non-stationary sea level rise effects based on sample average approximation
Dimitrova et al. Modeling Finite‐Time Failure Probabilities in Risk Analysis Applications
Balakrishnan et al. Developing Resilience Pathways for Interdependent Infrastructure Networks: A Simulation-Based Approach with Consideration to Risk Preferences of Decision-Makers

Legal Events

Date Code Title Description
AS Assignment

Owner name: SWISS REINSURANCE COMPANY LTD., SWITZERLAND

Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNORS:REIMANN, STEFAN;WUEST, MARC;BAUMGARTNER, DAVID;SIGNING DATES FROM 20161122 TO 20161212;REEL/FRAME:042352/0154

STPP Information on status: patent application and granting procedure in general

Free format text: DOCKETED NEW CASE - READY FOR EXAMINATION

STPP Information on status: patent application and granting procedure in general

Free format text: NON FINAL ACTION MAILED

STPP Information on status: patent application and granting procedure in general

Free format text: RESPONSE TO NON-FINAL OFFICE ACTION ENTERED AND FORWARDED TO EXAMINER

STCF Information on status: patent grant

Free format text: PATENTED CASE